Texas Music Education Research, 2012

L. M. Wiedenfeld

Edited by
Mary Ellen Cavitt, Texas State University—San Marcos

Sex-Types and Instrument Selection:

The Effect of Gender Schemas on Fifth Graders’
Instrument Choices

Laura M. Wiedenfeld
Southern Methodist University

Since the mid-1970s, music education researchers studied and followed musicians’ and non-
musicians’ views of music instrument gender stereotypes and associations. The vast majority of
studies focused on children, ranging in age from preschool through high school. Students’ gender
associations have changed little from 1978 (Abeles, 2009; Abeles & Porter, 1978). Researchers
tried treatments such as having instrumental demonstrators of both sexes performing with
varying degrees of success (Harrison, 2000; Killian & Satrom, 2011). Even with treatment,
survey results suggested that children continue to stereotype instruments in the same way as their
counterparts did a generation earlier (Abeles, 2009; Abeles & Porter, 1978; Eros, 2008).
Researchers identified variables determining students’ instrument selection and gender
associations based on age, culture, and the influence of adults on the child. This research
explored the causes of instrument gender stereotypes, the variables that cause stereotypes, and
the treatments used to affect change.
To understand instrument gender stereotypes, one must first understand the difference
between sex and gender and gender’s role in society. Sex is often defined as biological, whereas,
gender is defined as socially constructed (O’Neill 1997; Sinsel et al, 1997). Some argue against
this broad definition, as they see sex and gender as synonymous, together creating a suite of traits
that construct a person biologically and socially (Sinsel et al, 1997). Others find the gender
definitions of masculine and feminine too constricting, as they do not allow an in between or
androgynous trait (Sinsel et al., 1997). Bem (1983) proposed androgyny and undifferentiated as
sex-types, in addition to high feminine-low masculine sex type and high masculine-low feminine
sex-type, which is determined by self-scored characteristics on the Bem Sex Role Inventory.
Bem proposed that cultural observations made by young children, coupled with their ability to
encode and organize information, allows them to create gender-schemas, which includes gender
roles and gender-appropriate activities.
Gender-appropriate activities include musical activities, such as what types of music to listen
to, reaction to different types of music, and what types of instruments to play. The instruments
most often associated with femininity are flute, clarinet, and oboe (high woodwinds) and the
instruments most associated with masculinity are trumpet, trombone (brass), and percussion
(Abeles, 2009; Abeles & Porter, 1978; Killian & Satrom, 2011). Saxophone is often considered

Texas Music Education Research, 2012—Page 64

 Texas Music Education Research, 2012
L. M. Wiedenfeld

gender neutral and little research has utilized the French horn. It is unclear how and when gender
associations with instruments began in the United States. Children consistently assign
instruments to genders in the same manner as their parents (Abeles, 2009; Abeles & Porter,
1978). This leads some to believe that children are learning sex-type instruments from their
parents and media (Abeles, 2009; Abeles & Porter, 1978; Fortney et al, 1993; Griswold &
Chroback, 1981). This belief corresponds with Bem’s (1983) gender-scheming theory of children
observing, ordering, and creating gender-stereotypes based on what is modeled and said by their
parents and other influential adults.
Influential adults, other than parents and close family members, may include band directors
or demonstrators of instruments. Numerous studies have looked at the effect of demonstrator-
gender on children with varying results (Harrison, 2000; Killian & Satrom, 2011). In her 2000
study, Harrison interviewed students at three middle schools for a baseline reading, and then held
concerts at two of the three middle schools, one with gender-consistent models, one with gender-
inconsistent models, and the third was the control with no models. Her findings suggested that
both boys and girls were affected by seeing gender-inconsistent models, namely boys with the
piano and flute, and girls with the trumpet or guitar. Other instruments, namely the drums, were
unaffected by gender, with a majority of students preferring drums following the concerts,
regardless of the model’s gender. This suggests that the music played by the drummer (which
was not controlled) affected the students’ preference more than did the sex of the model.
In their 2011 study, Killian and Satrom had a similar study, in which they controlled the
repertoire the demonstrating musicians of both genders played (“Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star”,
mid-range). The researchers detected a trend with many students changing their instrument
preference following the concert; however, this trend yielded no significant difference in the
statistical data, which the researchers attributed to the small sample size. Like Harrison (2000),
Killian and Satrom recommended further research on the role of significant adults, especially
parents, in student instrument preference.
The views of influential adults, such as parents, have not been studied since the seminal
Abeles and Porter 1978 study. Band directors have been surveyed (Johnson & Stewart, 2004),
with results suggesting that band directors were impartial to instrument gender associations;
however, it is interesting that typically bands are grouped by gender associations (i.e. males are
on low brass instruments, females are on high woodwinds), even if survey results suggest
directors assign instruments based solely on physical characteristics, not gender. Why is there a
difference? Is it because of band directors, students, parents, or a combination of the three?
This research aims to study the views of beginning band students and their parents, and if
their opinions of music and gender affect their instrument selections. Do fifth graders select their
instruments based on social perceptions? Are parents a dominant force in their child’s decision
on what instrument to play in band? Is the sex role of the student reflected in their instrument
selection? Would parents support their child if they opted for a gender-inconsistent instrument?
These questions were synthesized in two surveys, one for parents and one for students, which
were completed during an instrument drive at a North Texas-area middle school. I hypothesized
that this group of students would be more gender neutral, which would correlate with a gender-
neutral band director and parents. Is this generation of new band students truly gender neutral, or
is this middle school an exception to the norm, with other middle school students basing their
instrument selections on gender guidelines placed on them by their parents and other outside
influences that create their gender schemas?

Texas Music Education Research, 2012—Page 65

 Texas Music Education Research, 2012
L. M. Wiedenfeld

Method

To determine the reasoning behind fifth graders’ instrument selections and their
corresponding sex-types, students (n =73) and their parents (n = 73) were given surveys when
they arrived at the instrument selection nights at one intermediate school in North Texas. The
school was chosen based on availability and the gender neutrality of its band director and
instrument testers. Only one school participated in this study, as it is a pilot study. The selection
nights were on two consecutive evenings in May 2011. The researcher was present at all times
during the selection nights and all procedures protected the students’ identities and their well-
being.
When students and parents arrived at the event, they were given a three-page packet that
contained both the parent and student surveys. They were told that the surveys were to study
instrument drives in the North Texas area and would not be shared with the band director or
affect their instrument assignments. Each survey was premarked with the participant number.
Parents and students were prompted to take the survey prior to testing the instruments. The
student survey was one page, with questions on the front and back. The questions were mostly
closed-response questions, with the option of “other” for clarification. The student survey asked
who helped the student in picking out their top three instruments and then asked why they
selected each instrument. The final question asked if the student would refuse band if they had to
play a specific instrument. An open answer follow-up question allowed students to state which
instrument they would not play and why. The student survey is shown in Figure 1.

Texas Music Education Research, 2012—Page 66

 Texas Music Education Research, 2012
L. M. Wiedenfeld

 
  

+
&!


!'&
+
&
'&'$
 
$/

$
$
!
)$! 
 %)$%/
%
#'%&! $
)
!&

'%
!$
+!'$

 %&$' &
%%  &
 
)
!&

%$
)&
 +! 
2&
%
!  &3/



%
$
&
 %)$
&&
%&
&%
+!'/



9/
*.








:/
'$$ &
$.


=&


>&



;/

$
+!'

 
%%
)&
$/
+!$
%&
+$0


%


!

</
(
+!'
%&
&
&$
 %&$' &%
+!'
!%&
) &
&!
"+
!$
 0


%

!

=/


-
)!
"
+!'
%&
+!'$
&!"
&$
 %&$' &%0

)!
+!'
& 

"
+!'
&
!%&/


4 
$&!$6




+
$ &%



+
$ %



!
! -


!%
+
+%


>/
+
&!"
&$
 %&$' &%
$
2$
+!'$
&!"
&$3.

%%!!

$ &

'"! '
'&



$ 
!$
!

$'%%!
*!"! 


$!! 
$'"&
'

&$.7777777777777

!$
&
*&
#'%&! %-

%'$
&!
!!%
&

 %)$
&&
%&%
%$%

+!'/

?/
+
$%&
!
%
7777777777777777777777777
2"%

 3
'%.





&
%!' /



+
$
"+%
&/


+
$ %
"+
&/



1
!!
&
&/


4
$&!$5

/


+
"$ &%

/



 %&$' &
!!%
!!/


%,
!
&
 %&$' &/


&$77777777777777777777777777

@/
+
%! 
!
%
7777777777777777777777777
2"%

 3
'%.





&
%!' /



+
$
"+%
&/


+
$ %
"+
&/



1
!!
&
&/


4
$&!$5

//


+
"$ &%

/



 %&$' &
!!%
!!/


%,
!
&
 %&$' &/


&$77777777777777777777777777

A/
+
&$
!
%
7777777777777777777777777
2"%

 3
'%.





&
%!' /



+
$
"+%
&/


+
$ %
"+
&/



1
!!
&
&/


4
$&!$5

/


+
"$ &%

/



 %&$' &
!!%
!!/


%,
!
&
 %&$' &/


&$77777777777777777777777777

98/


)!'
!&
!
 




&!
"+

 %&$' &



!&
/


%

!

99/


-
)&
 %&$' &2%3
 
)+0

777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777

Figure 1. Student Survey

The parent survey was two pages, with questions on the front and back of both pages. Like
the student survey, questions were closed-response with the option of “other” for clarification.
The parent survey asked for the parent’s and family’s formal music background. Of particular
interest are questions 13 through 29, a series of statements about their child’s personality in order
to gauge the child’s sex-role. These questions were selected from Boldizar’s Children’s Sex Role
Inventory (CSRI)(1991). The survey included five masculine items, five feminine items, and
seven neutral items. The statements were in the order of: masculine trait, feminine trait, and
neutral trait. Two additional neutral questions (#28 and #29) followed the last series in order to
create an even number of questions. These answers were not counted in the final neutral score.

Texas Music Education Research, 2012—Page 67

 Texas Music Education Research, 2012
L. M. Wiedenfeld

Parents were asked to circle one of four answers for their child: “very true”, “mostly true”, “a
little true”, and “not true”. These answers would be scored on a four-point Likert-type scale of 4
for “very true”, 3 for “mostly true”, 2 for “a little true”, and 1 for “not true”. The questions were
selected based on their perceived gender neutrality and positive connotations, in case parents
were concerned about these answers affecting their child’s standing with their band director. The
masculine, feminine, and neutral items were added and averaged separately to reveal the child’s
masculinity, femininity, and neutral ratings. Questions 30 through 34 asked for the parent’s
personal influence on their child’s instrument selection and if they would have reservations
towards any instruments and why. The parent survey can be seen in Figure 2.
After both surveys were completed, parents and students returned the surveys to the
researcher and proceeded to the band hall to test the instruments. The students were given a
score sheet marked with their participant number. This score sheet listed all of the instruments
available for testing. Students were scored on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 representing least natural
ability and 10 representing most natural ability. If testers were given a score in between two
numbers, the score was rounded up post-testing. Percussion was an exception, as the students
were rated from 1 to 10 in three categories (pulse, technique, rhythmic execution) and given an
average score post-testing. After trying as many instruments as they wanted, the students
selected their top two instruments. The band director then made instrument assignments based on
the students’ scores and requests. The instrument assignments and scoring sheets were relayed to
the researcher, providing all data for analysis.

Texas Music Education Research, 2012—Page 68

 Texas Music Education Research, 2012
L. M. Wiedenfeld

 

 /
!,
'"


"('
,

#%!'
"
'
('(%
!

&'(!'/

%
%
!"
*%"!
!&*%&/
&
$(&'"!!%
*
!"'

(&
"%
,"(%
1&
!&'%( !'

&&! !'
!
&
" #',
"!!'/



&
%
'
!&*%
''
&'
'&
,"(/



7/
+.






 

8/
(&
%"(!.


&



"

9/



-
*'
!&'%( !'3&4

,"(
#,0
%

''
##,


'"
+

&&
%!'

&&
('%

&&""!



%'"!
%'"!
+

"


%!'


%(
&'
(#"!(

('


%!
"%!


"

%(&&"!

!"


'%!
&&

"#%!"
+
%" "!

%( #'

(



"

"!


'%.55555555555555555555555

:/




"%
"*
!,
,%&
3'"'40


A7
7
8

9
:
<
=
>
?
76@




;/
"*
!,
%!
"
,"(
)
'"'0
"'.

',1%

#!!'
"!
,"(%
'+
%'(%!-

#&
"(!'
' /


7
8
9
:
;
<
=
>
?
76@

</


,"(
)
"%
'!
"!
-
"
!,
"
,"(%
"'%
%!
#,
!
!&'%( !'
!
!-

"%

'
"!
' 0


&


"


2

=/



-
*'
!&'%( !'&

',
#,0



7555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555



8555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555



9555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555



:555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555



;555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

>/

,"(
#
'
#
"('
'%
!
!&'%( !'0


&


"


2

"%
'
!+'
$(&'"!&-
#&
%
'
!&*%
''
&'
&%&
,"(%

*"
&
'%,!

"('
"%
!
'",.

?/
,

&

55555555555555555555
.


&'



"(!&'
!,

76/
,

&

"% 
(&
&&"!&
"%
'&
,%/


&



"

77/




-
"!
*'
!&'%( !'
3#&
&'4.
5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555



78/




-
"%
"*
"!
3!
'"'
,%&40

A7
7
8
9
:
;
<
=
>
?
76@

79/
,

&
&"!&
&,/

%,
%(

"&',
%(


''
%(

"'
%(



7:/
,

&
""
'
(!%&'!!
"'%1&
#%" &/

%,
%(

"&',
%(


''
%(

"'
%(



7;/
,

!",&
#!
"'%&/

%,
%(

"&',
%(


''
%(

"'
%(

Figure 2. Continued on next page

Texas Music Education Research, 2012—Page 69

 Texas Music Education Research, 2012
L. M. Wiedenfeld

/4(
$




!(

$

!

 $

!


 

!



!



/5(
$


$


(


$

!

 $

!


 

!



!



/6(
$


$
(

$

!

 $

!


 

!



!



/7(
$


) (

$

!

 $

!


 

!



!



0.(
$


$
!
#
(

$

!

 $

!


 

!



!



0/(
$

$
 

#
 ! (

$

!

 $

!


 

!



!



00(
$



 


(

$

!

 $

!


 

!



!



01(

$

$


# 


$!
(

$

!

 $

!


 

!



!



02(
$


(

$

!

 $

!


 

!



!



03(
$


#


(

$

!

 $

!


 

!



!



04(
$





#

!


(

$

!

 $

!


 

!



!



05(
$


!(

$

!

 $

!


 

!



!



06(
$


$(

$

!

 $

!


 

!



!



07(
$


 (

$

!

 $

!


 

!



!



1.(

#


 ! 
$

# 

$

 (







1/(



$




 ! (







10(




$
 !
$



$(








11(


&



 ! +,
$!


#
$!


$(

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12(



&

$&
#$
$!


#
$!


$

"

 ! *



$'


!


" $

 $





%


 ------------------

Figure 2. Parent Survey

Results

The data are taken from the responses of 73 beginning band students and their parents. All
beginning band students were in the fifth grade at the same school. The sample was largely male,
with 60% of responders (n = 44) identifying as male and 40% (n = 29) identifying as female. The

Texas Music Education Research, 2012—Page 70

 Texas Music Education Research, 2012
L. M. Wiedenfeld

average results from students’ Children’s Sex Role Inventory (CSRI) can be seen in Table 1
(Boldizar, 1991).

Table 1

Average CSRI Scores by Sex

Sex Average Score Masculine Feminine Neutral

(out of 20)
Male (44) 15 14.77 15.95
Female (29) 15.65 16.59 16.24
Total (73) 15.33 15.5 16.05

The male students’ average masculine inventory score was 15/20 and their feminine score
was 14.77/20. The little disparity between the masculine and feminine scores suggests that most
of the males identified as high masculine-high feminine, also known as androgynous.
Interestingly, the female students had a higher masculine score than their peers. Perhaps this is
because there were fewer female students (n = 29) than male students (n = 44). Like their male
counterparts, the females had both high masculine and feminine scores, which can be identified
as androgynous.
The majority of students in this study identified as high masculine-high feminine. To
determine the sex role of the student, I took their masculine and feminine scores and determined
which was one was higher. If both were high, I determined whether the student was androgynous
or only high masculine or high feminine if the disparity between the feminine and masculine
scores was equal to or greater than three points. I determined whether a student was low
masculine-low feminine (or asexual) if both of their scores were less than 10. Although no
students were classified as asexual, there were two students who consistently had scores in the
low teens in all categories. The number of students identified in each CSRI determined sex-role
can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2

Sex-Roles by Sex

High Masculine- High Feminine- High Masculine- Low Masculine-

Low Feminine Low Masculine High Feminine Low Feminine

Number of Males 5 (11%) 7 (16%) 31 (70%) 0

Number of 2 (7%) 7 (24%) 20 (69%) 0
Females
Total 7 (9%) 14 (19%) 51 (70%) 0

It is apparent that sex and gender are truly different, as an equal number of males and females
identified as high feminine-low masculine. The next question is whether these students identified

Texas Music Education Research, 2012—Page 71

 Texas Music Education Research, 2012
L. M. Wiedenfeld

with gender-consistent instruments or if they did not identify instruments with gender. Tables
3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 address this.
On examination of these tables, it is clear that both girls and boys play both gender-consistent
and inconsistent instruments. One of the most startling figures is the number of male students
who play clarinet. Once considered a feminine instrument, the clarinet is clearly viewed by these
students as androgynous. This claim is supported by the high number (n = 12) of androgynous
students assigned to clarinet. The horn, which has been included in few previous studies, was
also viewed as a gender neutral instrument, with six students testing as high masculine-high
feminine, as compared to the two high masculine students and the one high-feminine student. It
is of note that the saxophone, which is often regarded as a gender-neutral instrument was
comprised of androgynous students; however, there were no females selected to play saxophone
in the sample. This may be explained by how well the females who tried saxophones scored (the
average score was 5.76/10).


*%(

 

  



 














!




&
&
&
&
&
)
&
(
&
(
(
&

&
&
&
)
&
&
&
(
(
&
(
)

&
&
*
.
&
(
&
,
,
*
-
(


'
*
0
'
*
'
.
-
+
/
*




*%)












!




&
&
&

&
&
(
&
&
&
(
&

&
&
&
*
(
(
&
(
&
&
&
&

&
(
(
,
)
,
)
*
&
(
(
(


(
(
/
*
-
*
+
'
(
)
(




*%*


"
!& "










!




&
&
&
&
&
)
(
(
&
(
)
&

&
&
&
,
(
(
&
)
(
&
(
)

&
(
+
()
)
-
)
/
,
+
.
)


(
(
(.
*
0
*
((
-
,
('
+

$
&


&
#
&


&
#

&

&&
%

Texas Music Education Research, 2012—Page 72

 Texas Music Education Research, 2012
L. M. Wiedenfeld

The trumpet, often viewed as a masculine instrument, was selected mainly by androgynous
students (n = 7), as was the trombone (n = 4). Percussion also contains mostly androgynous
students (n = 8), with one high-masculine student and two-high feminine students.
The instruments with the largest concentration of high feminine-low masculine students were
flute, clarinet, and tuba, with over 33% of the students selected identified as high feminine. It is
somewhat surprising that two students identified as high feminine play the tuba, which is often
considered a masculine instrument. What’s even more interesting is that these students are male,
and the other male and female in the class identify as androgynous. The only instrument with
33% of students identifying as high masculine is the oboe, which is often considered a feminine
instrument. The other two students surveyed identified as androgynous.
Interestingly, the instruments students tested or selected as their top three instruments did
follow gender-consistent patterns. Figure 4 shows the instruments tested by sex.

Table 4

Instruments Tested by Sex

Clar Flute Horn Oboe Perc Sax Trbn Tmpt Tuba Bari
Male 21 10 31 19 21 28 33 34 27 31
Female 22 21 22 19 13 17 11 21 10 11
Total 43 31 53 38 34 45 44 55 37 42
Note. clar for clarinet, perc for percussion, trbn for trombone, tmpt for trumpet, and bari for baritone.

Figure 4 reveals that, although the majority of students are androgynous, they are more likely
to test sex-consistent instruments. For example, 72% of female students tested the flute, but only
22% of males tested it. The same is true for students testing the trombone: 38% of females tested
the trombone, compared to the 75% of males. The instruments that this sample of students
identified as feminine are flute and oboe, and trombone, tuba, and baritone are considered
masculine. These results are consistent with those of Abeles (2009), with upper woodwinds
considered feminine and low brass considered masculine. Yet some results differ from Abeles’
most recent study, in that instruments considered gender neutral are expanding. In addition to
saxophone and horn, trumpet is no longer masculine and clarinet is no longer feminine. It is
difficult to gauge the students’ view on percussion, as that was only tested one day, which
limited the sample size. This limited sample (n = 34), show that an equal percentage of males
(48%) and females (45%) tested percussion, an instrument that may be more gender neutral than
in the past.
One of the most fascinating parts of the student survey was students’ reasons for
choosing their top three instruments. The survey asked the students to choose one of nine reasons
for choosing their instrument (see Figure 2): sound, family member plays it, friends play it,
ability, director’s choose, parent’s choose, aesthetics of the instrument, size of the instrument,
and other (an open question). The results may be seen in Figure 5.

Texas Music Education Research, 2012—Page 73

 Texas Music Education Research, 2012
L. M. Wiedenfeld

Table 5

Reason for Choosing Instrument

Sound Family Friends Ability Director Parents Aesthetic Size Other

First 36 7 3 16 - 1 3 1 -
Second 33 1 5 7 - 1 2 1 1
Third 29 6 2 3 - 3 5 2 1
Note. family/friends means a family member/friend plays the same instrument and director/parent means the
students’ director/parent made them choose the instrument.

It is clear that the overwhelming factor in student’s decisions is not social but kinesthetic and
aural. The sound of an instrument is the main reason why a student wants to play it, with their
ability to play the instrument second (if students gave multiple reasons, only the first was chosen,
which is why ability is significantly less than sound). It is only on the student’s second and third
choice instruments that social influence becomes a more prominent factor.
The students who responded to “other” were both male and female. The male student chose
“other” and said he, “[wanted] to try something new” by playing the horn; however, he was
assigned his first choice, the clarinet, for which he cited “sound” as the main influence. The
female student who chose “other” wanted to play saxophone because it was, “[her] Mimi’s
favorite”. Interestingly, the student did not test the saxophone, and was assigned her first choice,
percussion, for which she cited “sound” and “ability” as her main influences.
Just as interesting as the reasons why students want to play specific instruments, are the
instruments they would refuse to play. Students were asked if they would not join band if they
had to play and certain instrument. Of the 66 students who did respond, 65% (n =43) of students
were still, hypothetically, interested in band; however, the students who refused to play (n =23)
certain instruments provide insight into their gender schemas and thinking. Two female and two
male students refused tuba because of its size. Four females and two males would not play
specific instruments (flute, clarinet, French horn, and saxophone) because of ability. One male
student would refuse tuba because, “[he] didn’t like the sound”. Another male student would
refuse clarinet because, “[sic] requires too much attention”, which could be analyzed as his lack
of ability or his lack of attention. Three male students listed instruments and cited no specific
reason. These instruments were flute (2), oboe (2), bassoon, trumpet, percussion and baritone. As
stated previously, flute and oboe are often described as feminine, which may be some of their
reasoning. Another factor may be their ability (which could explain the lack of interest in
baritone, trumpet, and percussion). Three other male students cited not being interested or not
liking these instruments: flute (2), oboe (2), bassoon (3), and clarinet. All of the instruments the
males listed may be categorized as feminine, which leads to the one student who did cite gender
as a reason for not playing an instrument. One male student refused tuba and flute because, “
[sic] they are too girly or it’s too big”.

Discussion

This pilot study revealed insights into instrument selection and gender. Fifth graders do select
their instrument based on social perceptions; however, the social perceptions are changing and
more instruments are considered gender neutral or androgynous. Parents were not the dominant

Texas Music Education Research, 2012—Page 74

 Texas Music Education Research, 2012
L. M. Wiedenfeld

force in their child’s instrument selection among children in this sample; rather, the sound of the
instrument and the student’s ability and early success were the key factors in these children’s
instrument decision-making process. The sex-role of the student was sometimes reflected in their
instrument selection. With little significant difference among the four sex-types, most of the
students tested as androgynous; yet, they viewed the majority of their instruments as
androgynous, as demonstrated in the high number of males and females testing and playing
clarinet, horn, oboe, percussion, and trumpet.
It should be noted that the Children’s Sex Role Inventory ought to be viewed as a measuring
tool that does not reveal everything about a student. Like any test that measures personality
traits, it must be stressed that these children do not personify their sex-types; rather, the student
sex-types help us better understand the student. For example, if a person takes a Myers-Briggs
personality test and is identified as “idealistic-introvert”, it does not mean this person is anti-
social or cannot handle social settings, but simply enjoys time to alone, something that everyone
needs and appreciates. The personality aspects of the Children’s Sex-Role Inventory must be
viewed in that same light.
To better understand how sex-role affects the instrument selection process, a large-scale
study must take place. A greater sample would add depth to the pilot study, and should include
different areas of North Texas, and possibly participants in other states. The future study also
needs a larger sample of sex-role questions for the students or the students’ parents to answer,
which would be more effective at measuring a child’s sex-type (and needs to include the
reasoning process behind question selection.) This larger sample of questions should also include
aspects of masculinity and femininity that could be perceived as negative, in order to better
understand the student. The social, cultural, and economics of the school could possibly be a
major factor in a child’s gender schema and instrument selection process. The larger sample
would also yield a diverse group of band directors and music educators, and if their gender-
biases effect their student’s instrument choices.
The information regarding why students choose their instruments could also become a study
in and of itself. A longitudinal study that tracks children through band to see if their initial
interest is maintained and, what factors affect a child’s experience in band, both positive and
negative. This would provide insight into why some students quit or become bored early in their
music career.
The question persists of how and why musical instruments are given gender roles. When
does this develop and, does it develop in their early listening? Is it possible to create a gender-
neutral environment? If so, how would students then select instruments? Would it still be
primarily based on sound and ability? This question, and others posed in this pilot study, can
only be answered with further research in the field of instrument selection and gender
stereotyping in fifth grade band students.

Texas Music Education Research, 2012—Page 75

 Texas Music Education Research, 2012
L. M. Wiedenfeld

References

Abeles, H. F. & Porter, S. (1978). The sex-stereotyping of musical instruments. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 26 (2), 65-75.
Abeles, H. F. (2009). Are musical instrument gender associations changing? Journal of Research in Music
Education, 57 (2), 127-139.
Bem, S. L. (1983). Gender schema theory and its implications for child development: raising gender aschematic
children in a gender-schematic society. Signs, 8 (4), 598-616.
Boldizar, Janet P. (1991). Assessing sex typing and androgyny in children: the children’s sex
Role inventory. Developmental Psychology, 27 (3), 505-515.
Eros, J. (2008). Instrument selection and gender stereotypes: a review of recent literature. Update: Applications of
Research in Music, 27, 57-64.
Fortney, P.M., Boyle, J.D. & DeCarbo, N.J. A study of middle school band students’ instrument choices (1993).
Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 28-39.
Griswold, P.A. & Chroback, D.A. (1981). Sex-role associations of music instruments and occupations by gender and
major. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29, 57-62.
Harrison, A. C. (2000). Children’s gender-typed preferences for musical instruments: An intervention study.
Psychology of Music, 28 (1), 81-97.
Killian, J.N. & Satrom, S.L. (2011). The effect of demonstrator gender on wind instrument preference of
kindergarten, third-grade, and fifth-grade students. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 29
(2), 13-19.
O’Neill, S. A. (1997). Gender and music. In D.J. Hargreaves & A.C. North (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Music
(46-63). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sinsel, T.J., Dixon, W.E., Jr., & Blades-Zeller, E. (1997). Psychological sex type and preferences in musical
instruments in fourth and fifth graders. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45 (3), 390-402.
Warnock, E.C. (2009). Gender and attraction: predicting middle school performance ensemble participation.
Contributions to Music Education 36 (2), 59-78.

Texas Music Education Research, 2012—Page 76